The development of an effective, sustainable, and well-coordinated emergency response and recovery procedure for site-induced emergencies that could have off-site impacts should include input from key external stakeholders. This includes those potentially affected by a site-induced emergency (see Task 4), as well as external stakeholders with a responsibility for response and recovery planning and implementation.

The objective of engagement and co-ordination with external stakeholders includes:

• Ensuring adequate identification, mapping, and understanding of external stakeholders that may be impacted by and/or are involved in responding to emergency scenarios, including recovery planning and implementation.
• Understanding the regulatory mandates and capacities of external stakeholders to provide support during response and recovery efforts.
• Reviewing, and updating as necessary, the assessment of emergency scenarios, the off-site impacts these are likely to have, the response and recovery planning required, and the controls currently in place to prevent the emergency from occurring and/or to minimize its consequences.
• Ensuring that the site’s legal obligations relating to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts are understood and met in full.
• Building sustainable relationships that enable transparent communication, build trust, and allow for knowledge exchange.
• Building partnerships to identify and establish clear allocations of responsibilities, accountabilities, and resources.
• Establishment of a MoU – see Box 4D.8 and Tool 4D.2.

The external stakeholders who play important roles in the co-development and implementation of the site’s EMP and associated procedures for site-induced emergencies that could have off-site impacts is subject to context and the type of emergency and impacts. Typically, government agencies and state organisations have the statutory accountability and legal responsibility to respond to the off-site impacts of potential emergency scenarios. These may include the national, subnational / regional and local government, the environmental authority, the local planning authority, mine inspectorate, the police, fire department, the Ministry of Health, those who need to be notified for legal or permitting reasons, etc. International organisations and NGOs can also be key stakeholders, particularly for recovery planning and implementation. Other key external stakeholders may include other mining companies in the area; large industrial facilities in the area; local/regional hospitals; transport authorities and operators; local businesses; volunteer agencies; and academic institutions. Potentially affected communities and their leaders are also key stakeholders (see Task 4).

It is important to understand the legal responsibilities and mandates of the various government agencies and state organisations, as this can differ by country. These agencies are likely to have their own EMPs, and may include regional and local government emergency plans, police and fire brigade response plans, hospital emergency plans, army disaster-response plans, etc. These plans should be identified, and it should be determined whether these plans jointly and adequately address the site-induced emergency and its off-site impacts. This will result in a shared understanding of response and recovery efforts for each emergency scenario.

Collectively identifying missing or weak elements in the emergency response and recovery activities can lead to the identification of tasks that need to be undertaken to complete or improve emergency response and recovery.

The legal framework should be considered in the planning of emergency management. This includes permitting obligations and legal or regulatory requirements in the event of a site-induced emergency with off-site impacts.

Should there be limited or no success in engaging external stakeholders with roles and responsibilities for emergency management, resulting in significant gaps in emergency response and recovery planning, this should be escalated to the General Manager, the BU Crisis Management Team, the BU Business Continuity Team, and other internal stakeholders as appropriate. All efforts taken to engage must be documented.

Box 4D.8 Memorandum of Understanding with External Parties

Where emergency management for site-induced emergencies with off-site impacts requires the involvement and support of government entities, the private sector or other community-based organisations, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) serves to formalise and institutionalise these relationships, involvement, and support. As per the EMS, contracts, or an MoU with external parties with roles and responsibilities to play in emergency response and recovery must be formalised and documented during the emergency management planning phase to ensure understanding and alignment and enable timely and coordinated action in the event of an emergency. The MoU should cover an understanding and sign-off on mandate and responsibilities, including but not limited to the provision of support (personnel and equipment), chain of command, jurisdiction and triggers for decision elevation. Where such contracts or MoU’s are in place, emergency response and recovery efforts are more effective and resilient. See 4D Tool 2 for an MoU Table of Contents.

Regular, open, informed, and transparent communication and engagement with key external stakeholders results in better emergency response and recovery efforts. The engagement process also aims to build trust amongst stakeholders, which is key in times of crisis. It is good practice to establish an emergency co-ordination group with key external stakeholders to regularly discuss emergency preparedness, response and recovery planning and help manage the expectations of the local communities during an emergency event.

All engagement activities should be undertaken in line with the guidance and tools provided in Social Way Section 3A: Stakeholder Engagement. For example, the identified external stakeholders with roles and responsibilities for emergency management should be included in stakeholder mapping and analysis (see Section 3A: Task 3) and engagements should be incorporated into the site’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan (see Section 3A: Task 4).

Based on engagement with key stakeholders, the EMP (in the description of the Site Profile) and associated procedures should include a description of all external emergency response and recovery stakeholders, their roles and resources, including where this is unclear, where these might overlap, and/or where there are (internal or external) gaps.

Box 4D.9 Case Study – DHL as External Stakeholder

During the Knysna Fires in South Africa in 2017, local authorities reached out to an unusual stakeholder, which led to effective emergency response and recovery.

The instant and overwhelming support for affected communities by individuals and businesses resulted in exceptional amounts of material donations (such as clothes and blankets) across the country. However, delivering these donations to affected communities was a challenge.

Through stakeholder mapping conducted during emergency management planning, and active stakeholder engagement, the government had an already established and strong relationship with DHL, a global leader in the transportation and logistics industry, who have a global disaster response system at their disposal.

As per plan, DHL quickly provided support when the fires broke out and bridged the logistical gap by transporting the donations directly into the disaster zone – fast and free of charge.

The key take away is that key stakeholders are not always the ones who are legally obliged to engage in response and recovery processes. Awareness of other, perhaps unusual potential partners can be particularly important when capacities of local authorities are limited.